al-Qaeda's 'Useful Idiot'

“http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/082505.html
Is Bush al-Qaeda�s �Useful Idiot�?
By Robert Parry
August 26, 2005

If Western intelligence agencies are right � that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the two-year-plus military occupation have been recruiting boons for Islamic terrorism � why is it logical to commit American troops to an indefinite deployment there? Won�t that just create more terrorists?
Put differently, has George W. Bush�s Iraq policy done more to help than hurt al-Qaeda, from Bush�s hasty decision to redirect U.S. military assets from Afghanistan to Iraq while Osama bin-Laden was still at large, to the loose talks about an American �crusade,� to supplanting Iraq�s secular government with one favoring Islamic fundamentalism?
In the 1980s, when I was covering the wars in Central America, neoconservative theorists liked to call U.S. peace activists �useful idiots� because their opposition to the hard-line Reagan administration was seen as unwittingly aiding and abetting communists and other leftist enemies. In that vein, is Bush now al-Qaeda�s �useful idiot�?
These questions are relevant today because Bush is again making clear his determination to �stay the course� in Iraq. He is rejecting the advice of some military strategists and a few political leaders that a wiser course might be for the United States to begin a phased withdrawal from the war-ravaged country.
In a speech in Idaho on Aug. 24, Bush rejected that idea, saying it would play into the hands of Islamic terrorists who �want us to retreat.�
�An immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, or the broader Middle East, as some have called for, would only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations,� Bush said. �So long as I�m the president, we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror.�
Dubious Claims
Bush also repeated some of his dubious assertions about the cause of Islamic terrorism. For instance, Bush said, �our enemies murder because they despise our freedom and our way of life,� though intelligence experts have long concluded that the dominant goal of al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists is to drive Western forces and influence out of the Middle East.
It�s not hatred of �our way of life� that motivates most Islamic extremists, but rather a perception that the West is threatening �their way of life.� While there have been violent strikes against the West, such as the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, Islamic fundamentalists generally see their struggle as defensive.
So, when Bush prescribes an offensive strategy � �to go after the terrorists where they live � until the terrorists have nowhere to run and nowhere to hide� � his projection of U.S. power into the Islamic world not only portends a virtually endless war but has the detrimental effect of reinforcing the arguments that Islamic extremists use to recruit impressionable young people to terrorism.
For that reason, some observers see the current dynamic as a vicious cycle � an escalating pattern of tit-for-tat violence with both sides nursing grievances bathed in blood. More cynical analysts go further, seeing a symbiotic relationship in which Bush and bin-Laden � whether wittingly or not � serve each other�s political needs.
At home, Bush and his right-wing allies have used the American fear of Islamic terrorism to consolidate political control. Among Muslims, bin-Laden and al-Qaeda have exploited their battle against the world�s superpower to transform themselves from a marginal � albeit dangerous � organization into an international force attracting thousands of recruits in the defense of Islam.
For their part, al-Qaeda�s leaders get international standing as warriors for the faith � rather than their deserved notoriety as thugs killing innocents � while the Bush administration gets to reorganize the United States along the authoritarian lines of a nation at war. [See Consortiumnews.com�s �Bush�s Grimmer Vision.�]
�Godfather� Scene
Soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Bush recognized that a targeted assault on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan would be too remote and too limited for his elevation to the pedestal of heroic �war president.� Bush quickly turned his gaze toward Iraq, according to accounts by former Treasury Secretary Paul O�Neill, counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke and author Bob Woodward.
So, even though Iraq�s Saddam Hussein wasn�t tied to Sept. 11, Bush and his neoconservative advisers perceived the political advantage of expanding the fight against al-Qaeda into a broader war against U.S. adversaries in the Middle East.
Like a climatic scene from a �Godfather� movie, Bush and his neocon capos seized on the Sept. 11 attacks as an excuse to settle the Bush �family accounts,� which included eliminating Hussein, whom Bush once called �the guy who tried to kill my dad.�
But Bush�s revenge-driven invasion didn�t achieve the finality that some expected. Though Saddam Hussein was captured and his two sons were slain, the invasion of Iraq wasn�t the �cakewalk� among grateful Iraqis that some on Bush�s foreign-policy team had predicted.
Rather than accept U.S. occupation, thousands of Iraqis � especially from the nation�s Sunni minority � picked up guns and began making bombs to kill Americans. Thousands of foreign jihadists also slipped into Iraq to battle the Western invaders, often by becoming suicide bombers.
Soon, a full-fledged insurgency was underway with hundreds of American soldiers dying along with thousands of Iraqis, both civilians and combatants. Amid the chaos, American diplomats were caught up in the kind of complex �nation-building� that candidate Bush had vowed to avoid when he was seeking the presidency in 2000.
Yet, even as events in Iraq spun out of control, Bush and his political advisers found the �war on terror� a useful device for restructuring the U.S. government, redirecting tax money to friendly corporations, and reframing the American concept of civil liberties to give Bush the unbridled power to imprison anyone he deems an �enemy combatant.�
Bush also could count on legions of right-wing supporters to denounce domestic critics as �traitors,� obsessed with �blaming America� and guilty of violating the edict to �support the troops.� In this poisonous climate, most Democratic politicians and mainstream pundits shied away from any sustained criticism of Bush�s war policies.
Hart�s Advice
Former Sen. Gary Hart, D-Colo., observed this phenomenon in an Aug. 24 op-ed column for the Washington Post, entitled �Who Will Say �No More�?�
Hart urged Democratic leaders to admit they were deceived by Bush into supporting the Iraq War and ask forgiveness from the military families that have suffered. Then, the Democrats should give speeches explaining why the conflict is hurting American security, how the nation must move toward energy independence, and �what we and our allies can do to dry up the jihadists� swamp,� Hart wrote.
�The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war,� Hart continued. �The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating �Stay the course� even when the course, whatever it now is, is light years away from the one originally undertaken.
�The truth is we�re way off course. We�ve stumbled into a hornet�s nest. We�ve weakened ourselves at home and in the world. We are less secure today than before this war began. Who now has the courage to say this?� [Washington Post, Aug. 24, 2005]
As Hart noted, many Democratic leaders either have chosen to finesse the Iraq War by quietly supporting Bush�s policies or they have tried to outflank him from the Right by demanding that he send more troops and fight to win.
Only a few senior Democrats, such as Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, have ventured so far as to suggest a phased withdrawal by the end of next year.
A commonly heard Democratic mantra on Iraq is that �failure is not an option.� But no one in Washington has made a convincing case that failure is not at least a strong possibility. Simply declaring that success must occur doesn�t mean it will. [For more on this wishful thinking, see Consortiumnews.com�s �Iraq War�s Two Constants.�]
Enduring Paradox
The enduring paradox of the Iraq War is that Bush and other U.S. leaders insist that the presence of U.S. troops is necessary to bring political stability to Iraq, yet it is the presence of those U.S. troops that has become the driving force for both foreign jihadists and Iraqi insurgents to continue inflicting havoc across Iraq.
There might have been a way out of the paradox if Sen. John Kerry had won the White House in November 2004 and had enlisted some non-Western surrogate forces to fill the void as U.S. and British troops left. But Bush�s second term precluded that possibility.
Since then, Bush has been able to sustain an anti-withdrawal consensus in Washington by arguing that U.S. troops are needed to keep Iraq from turning into a �failed state� � like Afghanistan � and thus a potential base for Islamic terrorists to strike against the United States and its allies.
�We will not allow the terrorists to establish new places of refuge in failed states from which they can recruit and train and plan new attacks on our citizens,� Bush said in his Idaho speech.
But that prediction about Iraq may be just another of Bush�s worst-case scenarios, not a likely danger. Another scenario could be that a U.S. withdrawal might improve Iraq�s chances for stability by removing the chief rallying point for Islamic extremists.
Without the American presence to incite young Muslims to strap on suicide belts, the foreign terrorist operations in Iraq might shrivel. Even the Iraqi Sunnis, whose anti-American interests now overlap with those of the foreign jihadists, might have little stomach for the civilian-butchering jihadists if the Americans were gone. The Sunnis might well revert to Hussein�s approach of ruthlessly repressing Islamic extremists.
In other words, as odd as it might seem, an American withdrawal could actually contribute to the precise result that is now the chief U.S. policy goal, preventing Iraq from becoming a haven for terrorists.
That does not mean, of course, the future of Iraq will be peaceful. The blood shed over the past two-plus years will almost certainly fuel new rounds of revenge. A civil war among the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds also remains a distinct possibility.
But the United States may have to recognize that � having opened the door to this chaos � it is the wrong party to set matters right. Sometimes, the best course of action is to step back and provide encouragement, but leave well enough alone. [See Consortiumnews.com�s �Iraq & the Logic of Withdrawal.�]
Ironically, the key to resolving the Iraqi paradox might be what many families of American soldiers desperately long for already, the return of their loved ones safe and sound.
The tragedy of Iraq, however, may be that George W. Bush will insist on �staying the course,� Democratic leaders won�t dare contradict him � and the killing will go on.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'”

“These articles are too long!”

“No you are just to lazy.”

“WK, do a search on Iraq vs Vietnam and see how many comparsions there are.

It is hard to fight an enemy when you can't tell one Iraqi from another. Just like Vietnam. Another war we had no chance of winning.”

“It is hard to fight an enemy when you can't tell one Iraqi from another. Just like Vietnam. Another war we had no chance of winning.�
Ewker
12:00:44 PM

Ewker you're dead on when you said it�s hard to fight an enemy when you can't tell one Iraqi from another. However, welcome to modern warfare. Much of our successes and efforts in Iraq are focused to make it more and more less likely for the enemy to blend in especially since this enemy continues to become overwhelmingly foreign. Nevertheless, this war is more dependant upon the Iraqi people's winning efforts than ours. Although we might disagree on how far they have to go, thus far you have to believe that they are own the right track of taking control and becoming a nation.

I'm always surprised no one complains about Bosnia and our prolonged presents there. I thought they were coming home Christmas of 1995(?).”

“The only way we could have had a resounding victory in Iraq is to have fought it like we did Germany and Japan. Bomb them back to the stone age, put in a temporary martial US governement and then build them back up.”

“trailhound, how many US soldiers died in Bosnia?
Also so far I have seen no evidence that the Iraqis are taking over there country. It doesn't matter how long we are there as soon as we leave it will be back to their old ways. Why waste more US soldiers lives over there
last edited: 8/26/05 1:05:38 PM”

“If Western intelligence agencies are right � that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the two-year-plus military occupation have been recruiting boons for Islamic terrorism

Has it? Not from what I've read. There's a distinction between jihad and terrorism. jihad activity has certainly increased in localized areas, but the global terrorist networks have been dealt a terrible blow since 9/11, Iraq war notwithstanding. I mean, how many 9/11 scale attacks have we seen since 9/11? Oh, that's right - none!

More chicken littleism from our resident jew hater.”

“Honestly, I don't have that figure. However, the war funding issue is a hot topic most dems love to talk about. Ewker you comments are exactly the same as quoted by many after the world wars towards Japan, Germany, etc. One recent thing that tells me they are on their way to taking back their country is disagreements and being forced to compromise on constitutional issues.”

“I thought this thread was about Cindy Sheehan.”

“I guess the trouble is not what's happened since 9/11, but what happens once america pulls out. I think one on the best comparisons here is not Vietnam, but the Soviet invasion of Afganistan.
the Red Amry had overwhelming superiority, and yet would be constantly picked off over years and years. When the Russians finally gave up and left the Taliban took over, and a hardened core of fighters moved onto other things - glabal terrorism.
With, the size of the Iraqi Jihadist movement it only takes a tiny percentage of them to decide to take the war to America, or Europe, and you've got a huge problem on your hands.”

“Agreed Y2.”

“With, the size of the Iraqi Jihadist movement it only takes a tiny percentage of them to decide to take the war to America, or Europe, and you've got a huge problem on your hands.

Right, because we all know how quick and easi setting up a global terrorist network from a bunch of peasants is, particularly with the U.S. extremely active in counter-terror operations around the globe.

Damn, we're doomed.”

“I'm not following the comparison. Neither in Vietnam nor in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the enemies even remotely conquered. In both conflicts the US and USSR cut their losses and packed for home which left a huge political power vacuum. Also, (you guys may have to help me on this one) never do I recall there being any type of focus to empower the people and therefore obviously no efforts for them to manage or police rebel elements. Even in our country we have rebel factions that are relatively kept in check from within. Yes, there will probably always be Taliban in Afgan, but a sovereign nation will limit them to the front porch talking about the good ole days.

Y2 I do think you make a good point when you said, �it only takes a tiny percentage of them to decide to take the war to America, or Europe, and you've got a huge problem on your hands.� That�s the principle behind those nations that refuse to take care of those problems will force other nations to take care of it for them.
last edited: 8/26/05 2:06:03 PM”

“trailhound, don't forget what people said about the Vietnam war either when comparing.”

“Right, because we all know how quick and easi setting up a global terrorist network from a bunch of peasants is, particularly with the U.S. extremely active in counter-terror operations around the globe.

Mutt - I hate to tell you this but they are not all peasants. Not all of the Afgan fighters were peasants either. There were a very few more sophisticated fighters coming in from other countries, such as Bin Laden himself. Out of this small numeber Al Queda emerged.

There was limited sophistication there, but there was also a network put in place to supply these people, in terms of funding, manpower and logistical support.


The general consensus in Iraq is that there is a growing sophiticalion emerging in the terrorsts tactics. These guys are becoming competent at urban warfare. There a bomb builders and snipers being trained. there is also the support for these guys, the funding, the bomb material, the guns, the ammunition. There are also the grunts, the suicide bombers - they are not the threat, it's those small numbers above that who we need to worry about. It doesn't take many college educated Jihadists to get through to hit America.

I'm not saying it's a done deal, and America and the other threatened nations will do what they can to stop it, but there will almost certainly be the occasional "victory" for terrorists.

In therory the invasion of Iraq should have cut this, but frankly the reality has come out so differently than planned that it's setting the stage for more problems a few years down the road.”

“Trailhound - that's the best possible case scenario. There's many things that have to go right before we even get to the stage of America pulling out. It's only after that that we'll find out if the whole invasion was a success or not.”

“Neither in Vietnam nor in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the enemies even remotely conquered -The Soviets did conquer Afganistan, they held all the key cities. Kabul was even potenitally safer and better controlled than Baghdad is now. It was the rest of the country they never contained.”

“More chicken littleism from our resident jew hater

You better watch what you say about me jackass. Just because I'm willing to highlight some of the double dealing actions of people (yes jewish neocons) inside our government doesn't mean I hate jews. The fact of the matter is that in these days anyone who would question the policies of the rightwing in Israel or the neocons is declared an anti-semite by the ADL and like minded people in the MSM. It has been their stock and trade since 1948. Well I'm here to tell you that it won't work with me and it hasn't since the summer of 1967. One day Israel is going answer for things like the Lavon affair, the U.S.S.Liberty, Jonathan Pollard, the selling American military technology to the Chinese, the ongoing Franklin/AIPAC spy scandal that the MSM doesn't seem to want to discuss, the neocon instigated Iraq war, and if they can get their way the coming attack on Iran. Israel is a racist apartheid state and is considered such by practically the whole world. What the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is a crime against humanity. Were it not for the United States in the United Nations Israel would have been under economic and diplomatic sanctions no less than 35 years ago. Like I said, talk your B.S. I'll debate any of the above topics anytime you want on TT. Fact is you don't want these people to know what the Israelis and sayanim like yourself are about. Now come up with some smartass retort buttwipe.
last edited: 8/26/05 4:19:04 PM”

“Now come up with some smartass retort buttwipe.

LOL, okay:

Yesterday, it was: The label doesn't intimidate anymore.

Today, it's: You better watch what you say about me jackass.

Gee, I guess those labels *do* get under your skin! Bwuhuhuh!”

“LOL @ Sarge!”

“Fight? Naw, I'm just needling SH. He's a big boy and can take it in stride.”

“If by "big boy" you mean "old man", yeah. You can take him man. He's old and slow!!!”

“You're right I can take it in stride. Now care to discuss Pollard or Franklin/AIPAC?
Maybe you prefer the U.S.S. Liberty? Or let us discuss Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith or Libby? Dare you let the subjects stand on facts?Probably not. Do your best to divert to something, anything else. Do your sayanim job Mutt.
last edited: 8/26/05 5:06:14 PM”

“LOl! Well I am old and slow Sarge. But not as slow as your pitiful brain. I'd have to be certified dead to be that slow.”

“Why so defensive solitary hiker? Are you insecure?”

“al-Qaeda's 'Useful Idiot'

opinions, opinions..........”

“WASHINGTON — A major CIA effort launched last year to hunt down Osama bin Laden has produced no significant leads on his whereabouts, but has helped track an alarming increase in the movement of Al Qaeda operatives and money into Pakistan's tribal territories, according to senior U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the operation.

In one of the most troubling trends, U.S. officials said that Al Qaeda's command base in Pakistan is increasingly being funded by cash coming out of Iraq, where the terrorist network's operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the anti-American insurgency as well as kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity.

The influx of money has bolstered Al Qaeda's leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping and reasserting influence over its far-flung network. The trend also signals a reversal in the traditional flow of Al Qaeda funds, with the network's leadership surviving to a large extent on money coming in from its most profitable franchise, rather than distributing funds from headquarters to distant cells.

Al Qaeda's efforts were aided, intelligence officials said, by Pakistan's withdrawal in September of tens of thousands of troops from the tribal areas along the Afghanistan border where Bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, are believed to be hiding.

Little more than a year ago, Al Qaeda's core command was thought to be in a financial crunch. But U.S. officials said cash shipped from Iraq has eased those troubles.

"Iraq is a big moneymaker for them," said a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-binladen20may20,0,6432117,full.story?coll=la-home-center”

“Birdie need a ransom?”

“Violink finally admits a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.”

“LOL...I wonder how the libbies are going to claim the whole GENEVA convention protection for these scum...

Lets see taking hostages, murdering hostages, participation in Criminal Activity....LOL”

“Same monkeys, different tree.”

“The influx of money has bolstered Al Qaeda's leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping and reasserting influence over its far-flung network.

Uh huh.
last edited: 5/21/07 7:54:39 AM”

“Pakistan is a very good ally.”

“Or our administration has little to any resolve.

Yamamoto (1941) "I fear we have awakend a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve"

Osama (2007)" I am thinking we awoke a napping yorkie and have confused him with multiple toys."”

“Osama (2007)" I am thinking we awoke a napping yorkie and have confused him with multiple toys."

I like that!”

“al-Qaeda's 'Useful Idiot':

"We gave the car keys to a drunk."

--Me”

““Pakistan is a very good ally.”
MarkO

I think you meant blind alley???”

“One theory I heard, which makes some sense to me is that Bin Laden and company launched 9/11 because they thought it would force the US into Afghanistan and the Al Qeda guys were was dumb and arrogant enough to think that they could give the US they same whoopin' they put on the Soviets, and we'd collapse, too. He got bailed out because Bush and company out-did 'em in stupidity and arrogance and added Iraq to the Invasion and nation building plan.”

“Yep there is a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq now. Its the US Goverment!.”

“They sold their souls to the devil by making Pakistan an "ally" some time in the '50s.

I have a feeling there could be some wicked blow-back from that fateful move.”

“Jack, using logic and reason will not be allowed. Marko, Yah, I think hiding nukes in a live volcano could blow back.”

“That's a really dumb theory pedXing, considering the reasons AQ did what it did are widely agreed upon with much evidence in support.”

“Aren't there any more dictators with nukes we can put on the payroll?  Kim Jong Il is blowing a golden opportunity.”

“It may be wrong, but it definitely beats "they hate our freedoms" as a theory.

What's yours Mutt? and what's your evaluation of "they hate our freedoms."”

“It's not "mine". Here's the dumbed-down version: Rich A$$hole (RA) wants power. Looks around and sees how secular governments have brainwashed their subjects into seeing everything America does as being evil to get their minds off the fact that their governments caused their problems. (RA) sees that islam can be a powerful agent of social control and the foundation of an enormous power base (cf Iranian Revolution). RA uses these and promises the religious ignorant an Islamic Superstate. RA strikes America to get America to overreact so that all the muslime peasants will rise up and revolt. America over-reacts just the way RA said it would. Nothing really changes in the ME - no Islamic superstate likely because most religious peasants are too concerned with keeping what little they have. RA humiliated and forced into hiding (likely dead), network is systematically destroyed, and all they have to work with now are largely impotent regional networks of little lasting significance, and the liberal self-hating contingent in America.”

“Spoken like a true hatriot.

Yup, that get's U.S. foreign policy off the hook.”

“Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Analysts warned that war in Iraq also could provoke Iran to assert its regional influence and "probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups" in the Muslim world.

The intelligence assessments, made in January 2003 and widely circulated within the Bush administration before the war, said that establishing democracy in Iraq would be "a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge." The assessments noted that Iraqi political culture was "largely bereft of the social underpinnings" to support democratic development.
[...]
The report includes lists indicating that the analyses, which were reported by The Washington Post last week, were distributed at senior levels of the White House and the State and Defense departments and to the congressional armed services and appropriations committees. At the time, the White House and the Pentagon were saying that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators, democracy would be quickly established and Iraq would become a model for the Middle East. Initial post-invasion plans called for U.S. troop withdrawals to begin in summer 2003.

The classified reports, however, predicted that establishing a stable democratic government would be a long challenge because Iraq's political culture did "not foster liberalism or democracy" and there was "no concept of loyal opposition and no history of alternation of power."

They also said that competing Sunni, Shiite and Kurd factions would "encourage terrorist groups to take advantage of a volatile security environment to launch attacks within Iraq." Because of the divided Iraqi society, there was "a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other unless an occupying force prevented them from doing so."

While predicting that terrorist threats heightened by the invasion would probably decline within five years, the assessments said that lines between al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world "could become blurred." U.S. occupation of Iraq "probably would boost proponents of political Islam" throughout the Muslim world and "funds for terrorist groups probably would increase as a result of Muslim outrage over U.S. actions."
[...]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052501380.html”